student admissions and TJ lawsuit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You claimed that I was full of crap when I said students were indoctrinated and only presented one side of an issue. I gave you an example. You asked me to elaborate and I did. You then basically admitted that only one side was taught because APUSH is designed to be a shallow survey. Thank you for your admission of defeat.

World's biggest eyeroll.

When you claim that students are being indoctrinated, your statement is pointless unless you are arguing that somehow the teachers are engaging in some sort of nefarious brainwashing plan.

So, fine. You won a point that was pointless. Congratulations. Enjoy your inane victory.

So the College Board is the source of the indoctrination and teachers and the VA DOE are just willing dupes. Ah... The Good German defense. I would expect nothing less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they can change admissions but the way they did it — secretively at first, statements against Asian American students my multiple decision makers, with no proper process, notice or public hearing— is not okay.

Who made statements against Asian American students, and what did they say?

They just want to play victim.

These are people who fundamentally believe....

....that an admissions process that admits 54% Asians and 20% Black and Latino students....

....is MORE racist than a process that admits 73% Asians and 3% Black and Latino students.

They believe themselves to be better, pure and simple. They genuinely believe that as a class of people, they work harder, care more about education, and just fundamentally are smarter to such a degree that they should have more Asian students in ONE ADMITTED CLASS than TJ has had Black students in its ENTIRE 35-year history.

That is called Asian supremacy.

The new system was designed for a more even spread, and it accomplished that goal. Nobody's disputing that it looks less racist on paper.

Still, that doesn't mean it's not racist. Imagine that you have a jar of cookies, and you set up a competition where everyone gets a certain fraction of the cookies based on how they perform. One particular kid is an outsider, so the other kids don't like them very much. They're confident in themselves, though, so after putting forth a remarkable effort, they manage to earn themselves a majority of the cookies. The other kids realize that the unpopular kid is winning the most, so they all say, "hey, let's just share the cookies evenly!" Technically fair, but at the same time totally not.

Your analogy only makes sense if you subscribe to the belief that Asians work harder and are therefore more deserving. Which is the literal definition of Asian supremacy in this case.

Unless you know the starting points of everyone else in the sample, you cannot use their current position to measure their level of effort.

I am not Asian, but I see their point and for some reason you do not. All they are asking for is an objective, race-blind admissions process. They are not claiming superiority, they are simply saying “you had these objective ways of evaluating candidates for years and it worked; but now that it is clear that Asians are dominating those traditional indicators we need to change the process in a manner to allow other candidates to be evaluated higher based on race or income. They are not saying they have a monopoly on hard work or intelligence, but rather that they are willing to compete on merit and ask that the top candidates be chosen whether they are Asian or not. If society decides that we do not like that approach anymore, that’s fine. But at least be honest about it and admit that the admissions process is being redone because the objective metrics led to a student body that society has decided should not exist in a public high school. Then find a legal and Constitutional way to adjust the process. But let’s at least concede it’s their success in the process that is driving these changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they can change admissions but the way they did it — secretively at first, statements against Asian American students my multiple decision makers, with no proper process, notice or public hearing— is not okay.

Who made statements against Asian American students, and what did they say?

They just want to play victim.

These are people who fundamentally believe....

....that an admissions process that admits 54% Asians and 20% Black and Latino students....

....is MORE racist than a process that admits 73% Asians and 3% Black and Latino students.

They believe themselves to be better, pure and simple. They genuinely believe that as a class of people, they work harder, care more about education, and just fundamentally are smarter to such a degree that they should have more Asian students in ONE ADMITTED CLASS than TJ has had Black students in its ENTIRE 35-year history.

That is called Asian supremacy.

The new system was designed for a more even spread, and it accomplished that goal. Nobody's disputing that it looks less racist on paper.

Still, that doesn't mean it's not racist. Imagine that you have a jar of cookies, and you set up a competition where everyone gets a certain fraction of the cookies based on how they perform. One particular kid is an outsider, so the other kids don't like them very much. They're confident in themselves, though, so after putting forth a remarkable effort, they manage to earn themselves a majority of the cookies. The other kids realize that the unpopular kid is winning the most, so they all say, "hey, let's just share the cookies evenly!" Technically fair, but at the same time totally not.

Your analogy only makes sense if you subscribe to the belief that Asians work harder and are therefore more deserving. Which is the literal definition of Asian supremacy in this case.

Unless you know the starting points of everyone else in the sample, you cannot use their current position to measure their level of effort.

I am not Asian, but I see their point and for some reason you do not. All they are asking for is an objective, race-blind admissions process. They are not claiming superiority, they are simply saying “you had these objective ways of evaluating candidates for years and it worked; but now that it is clear that Asians are dominating those traditional indicators we need to change the process in a manner to allow other candidates to be evaluated higher based on race or income. They are not saying they have a monopoly on hard work or intelligence, but rather that they are willing to compete on merit and ask that the top candidates be chosen whether they are Asian or not. If society decides that we do not like that approach anymore, that’s fine. But at least be honest about it and admit that the admissions process is being redone because the objective metrics led to a student body that society has decided should not exist in a public high school. Then find a legal and Constitutional way to adjust the process. But let’s at least concede it’s their success in the process that is driving these changes.

Well stated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they can change admissions but the way they did it — secretively at first, statements against Asian American students my multiple decision makers, with no proper process, notice or public hearing— is not okay.

Who made statements against Asian American students, and what did they say?

They just want to play victim.

These are people who fundamentally believe....

....that an admissions process that admits 54% Asians and 20% Black and Latino students....

....is MORE racist than a process that admits 73% Asians and 3% Black and Latino students.

They believe themselves to be better, pure and simple. They genuinely believe that as a class of people, they work harder, care more about education, and just fundamentally are smarter to such a degree that they should have more Asian students in ONE ADMITTED CLASS than TJ has had Black students in its ENTIRE 35-year history.

That is called Asian supremacy.

The new system was designed for a more even spread, and it accomplished that goal. Nobody's disputing that it looks less racist on paper.

Still, that doesn't mean it's not racist. Imagine that you have a jar of cookies, and you set up a competition where everyone gets a certain fraction of the cookies based on how they perform. One particular kid is an outsider, so the other kids don't like them very much. They're confident in themselves, though, so after putting forth a remarkable effort, they manage to earn themselves a majority of the cookies. The other kids realize that the unpopular kid is winning the most, so they all say, "hey, let's just share the cookies evenly!" Technically fair, but at the same time totally not.

Your analogy only makes sense if you subscribe to the belief that Asians work harder and are therefore more deserving. Which is the literal definition of Asian supremacy in this case.

Unless you know the starting points of everyone else in the sample, you cannot use their current position to measure their level of effort.

I am not Asian, but I see their point and for some reason you do not. All they are asking for is an objective, race-blind admissions process. They are not claiming superiority, they are simply saying “you had these objective ways of evaluating candidates for years and it worked; but now that it is clear that Asians are dominating those traditional indicators we need to change the process in a manner to allow other candidates to be evaluated higher based on race or income. They are not saying they have a monopoly on hard work or intelligence, but rather that they are willing to compete on merit and ask that the top candidates be chosen whether they are Asian or not. If society decides that we do not like that approach anymore, that’s fine. But at least be honest about it and admit that the admissions process is being redone because the objective metrics led to a student body that society has decided should not exist in a public high school. Then find a legal and Constitutional way to adjust the process. But let’s at least concede it’s their success in the process that is driving these changes.

There is your disconnect. The people making the change are making it because it no longer works. Now the school is going to spread the spots out geographically (which is how most selective state univestites also act, so the kids may as well get used to it)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they can change admissions but the way they did it — secretively at first, statements against Asian American students my multiple decision makers, with no proper process, notice or public hearing— is not okay.

Who made statements against Asian American students, and what did they say?

They just want to play victim.

These are people who fundamentally believe....

....that an admissions process that admits 54% Asians and 20% Black and Latino students....

....is MORE racist than a process that admits 73% Asians and 3% Black and Latino students.

They believe themselves to be better, pure and simple. They genuinely believe that as a class of people, they work harder, care more about education, and just fundamentally are smarter to such a degree that they should have more Asian students in ONE ADMITTED CLASS than TJ has had Black students in its ENTIRE 35-year history.

That is called Asian supremacy.

The new system was designed for a more even spread, and it accomplished that goal. Nobody's disputing that it looks less racist on paper.

Still, that doesn't mean it's not racist. Imagine that you have a jar of cookies, and you set up a competition where everyone gets a certain fraction of the cookies based on how they perform. One particular kid is an outsider, so the other kids don't like them very much. They're confident in themselves, though, so after putting forth a remarkable effort, they manage to earn themselves a majority of the cookies. The other kids realize that the unpopular kid is winning the most, so they all say, "hey, let's just share the cookies evenly!" Technically fair, but at the same time totally not.

Your analogy only makes sense if you subscribe to the belief that Asians work harder and are therefore more deserving. Which is the literal definition of Asian supremacy in this case.

Unless you know the starting points of everyone else in the sample, you cannot use their current position to measure their level of effort.

I am not Asian, but I see their point and for some reason you do not. All they are asking for is an objective, race-blind admissions process. They are not claiming superiority, they are simply saying “you had these objective ways of evaluating candidates for years and it worked; but now that it is clear that Asians are dominating those traditional indicators we need to change the process in a manner to allow other candidates to be evaluated higher based on race or income. They are not saying they have a monopoly on hard work or intelligence, but rather that they are willing to compete on merit and ask that the top candidates be chosen whether they are Asian or not. If society decides that we do not like that approach anymore, that’s fine. But at least be honest about it and admit that the admissions process is being redone because the objective metrics led to a student body that society has decided should not exist in a public high school. Then find a legal and Constitutional way to adjust the process. But let’s at least concede it’s their success in the process that is driving these changes.

To be honest, most of what you're saying here is logical and defensible but it rests on three words that are faulty - "and it worked".

It didn't work, and it hasn't worked for some time. And the only evidence you need is the declining application numbers, resulting in a LESS selective process even in an environment where population has exploded over the last dozen years.

Yes, the school has enjoyed #1 rankings of late. When you select students based almost exclusively on advancement and test-taking ability, and when lack of exceptional performance in those areas is a barrier to entry, you will fare well in rankings that evaluate advancement (AP exam quantity) and test-taking ability (SAT, ACT, AP scores).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they can change admissions but the way they did it — secretively at first, statements against Asian American students my multiple decision makers, with no proper process, notice or public hearing— is not okay.

Who made statements against Asian American students, and what did they say?

They just want to play victim.

These are people who fundamentally believe....

....that an admissions process that admits 54% Asians and 20% Black and Latino students....

....is MORE racist than a process that admits 73% Asians and 3% Black and Latino students.

They believe themselves to be better, pure and simple. They genuinely believe that as a class of people, they work harder, care more about education, and just fundamentally are smarter to such a degree that they should have more Asian students in ONE ADMITTED CLASS than TJ has had Black students in its ENTIRE 35-year history.

That is called Asian supremacy.

The new system was designed for a more even spread, and it accomplished that goal. Nobody's disputing that it looks less racist on paper.

Still, that doesn't mean it's not racist. Imagine that you have a jar of cookies, and you set up a competition where everyone gets a certain fraction of the cookies based on how they perform. One particular kid is an outsider, so the other kids don't like them very much. They're confident in themselves, though, so after putting forth a remarkable effort, they manage to earn themselves a majority of the cookies. The other kids realize that the unpopular kid is winning the most, so they all say, "hey, let's just share the cookies evenly!" Technically fair, but at the same time totally not.

Your analogy only makes sense if you subscribe to the belief that Asians work harder and are therefore more deserving. Which is the literal definition of Asian supremacy in this case.

Unless you know the starting points of everyone else in the sample, you cannot use their current position to measure their level of effort.

I am not Asian, but I see their point and for some reason you do not. All they are asking for is an objective, race-blind admissions process. They are not claiming superiority, they are simply saying “you had these objective ways of evaluating candidates for years and it worked; but now that it is clear that Asians are dominating those traditional indicators we need to change the process in a manner to allow other candidates to be evaluated higher based on race or income. They are not saying they have a monopoly on hard work or intelligence, but rather that they are willing to compete on merit and ask that the top candidates be chosen whether they are Asian or not. If society decides that we do not like that approach anymore, that’s fine. But at least be honest about it and admit that the admissions process is being redone because the objective metrics led to a student body that society has decided should not exist in a public high school. Then find a legal and Constitutional way to adjust the process. But let’s at least concede it’s their success in the process that is driving these changes.

There is your disconnect. The people making the change are making it because it no longer works. Now the school is going to spread the spots out geographically (which is how most selective state univestites also act, so the kids may as well get used to it)

It's not just state universities that do this. Elite schools do it too. They have recognized that it doesn't do them any good to have a supermajority of students coming from a few places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they can change admissions but the way they did it — secretively at first, statements against Asian American students my multiple decision makers, with no proper process, notice or public hearing— is not okay.

Who made statements against Asian American students, and what did they say?

They just want to play victim.

These are people who fundamentally believe....

....that an admissions process that admits 54% Asians and 20% Black and Latino students....

....is MORE racist than a process that admits 73% Asians and 3% Black and Latino students.

They believe themselves to be better, pure and simple. They genuinely believe that as a class of people, they work harder, care more about education, and just fundamentally are smarter to such a degree that they should have more Asian students in ONE ADMITTED CLASS than TJ has had Black students in its ENTIRE 35-year history.

That is called Asian supremacy.

The new system was designed for a more even spread, and it accomplished that goal. Nobody's disputing that it looks less racist on paper.

Still, that doesn't mean it's not racist. Imagine that you have a jar of cookies, and you set up a competition where everyone gets a certain fraction of the cookies based on how they perform. One particular kid is an outsider, so the other kids don't like them very much. They're confident in themselves, though, so after putting forth a remarkable effort, they manage to earn themselves a majority of the cookies. The other kids realize that the unpopular kid is winning the most, so they all say, "hey, let's just share the cookies evenly!" Technically fair, but at the same time totally not.

Your analogy only makes sense if you subscribe to the belief that Asians work harder and are therefore more deserving. Which is the literal definition of Asian supremacy in this case.

Unless you know the starting points of everyone else in the sample, you cannot use their current position to measure their level of effort.

I am not Asian, but I see their point and for some reason you do not. All they are asking for is an objective, race-blind admissions process. They are not claiming superiority, they are simply saying “you had these objective ways of evaluating candidates for years and it worked; but now that it is clear that Asians are dominating those traditional indicators we need to change the process in a manner to allow other candidates to be evaluated higher based on race or income. They are not saying they have a monopoly on hard work or intelligence, but rather that they are willing to compete on merit and ask that the top candidates be chosen whether they are Asian or not. If society decides that we do not like that approach anymore, that’s fine. But at least be honest about it and admit that the admissions process is being redone because the objective metrics led to a student body that society has decided should not exist in a public high school. Then find a legal and Constitutional way to adjust the process. But let’s at least concede it’s their success in the process that is driving these changes.

Additionally, everyone concedes that it's their success in this process that is driving the changes, and it's well-established in case law that geographic quotas are constitutional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they can change admissions but the way they did it — secretively at first, statements against Asian American students my multiple decision makers, with no proper process, notice or public hearing— is not okay.

Who made statements against Asian American students, and what did they say?

They just want to play victim.

These are people who fundamentally believe....

....that an admissions process that admits 54% Asians and 20% Black and Latino students....

....is MORE racist than a process that admits 73% Asians and 3% Black and Latino students.

They believe themselves to be better, pure and simple. They genuinely believe that as a class of people, they work harder, care more about education, and just fundamentally are smarter to such a degree that they should have more Asian students in ONE ADMITTED CLASS than TJ has had Black students in its ENTIRE 35-year history.

That is called Asian supremacy.

The new system was designed for a more even spread, and it accomplished that goal. Nobody's disputing that it looks less racist on paper.

Still, that doesn't mean it's not racist. Imagine that you have a jar of cookies, and you set up a competition where everyone gets a certain fraction of the cookies based on how they perform. One particular kid is an outsider, so the other kids don't like them very much. They're confident in themselves, though, so after putting forth a remarkable effort, they manage to earn themselves a majority of the cookies. The other kids realize that the unpopular kid is winning the most, so they all say, "hey, let's just share the cookies evenly!" Technically fair, but at the same time totally not.

Your analogy only makes sense if you subscribe to the belief that Asians work harder and are therefore more deserving. Which is the literal definition of Asian supremacy in this case.

Unless you know the starting points of everyone else in the sample, you cannot use their current position to measure their level of effort.

I am not Asian, but I see their point and for some reason you do not. All they are asking for is an objective, race-blind admissions process. They are not claiming superiority, they are simply saying “you had these objective ways of evaluating candidates for years and it worked; but now that it is clear that Asians are dominating those traditional indicators we need to change the process in a manner to allow other candidates to be evaluated higher based on race or income. They are not saying they have a monopoly on hard work or intelligence, but rather that they are willing to compete on merit and ask that the top candidates be chosen whether they are Asian or not. If society decides that we do not like that approach anymore, that’s fine. But at least be honest about it and admit that the admissions process is being redone because the objective metrics led to a student body that society has decided should not exist in a public high school. Then find a legal and Constitutional way to adjust the process. But let’s at least concede it’s their success in the process that is driving these changes.

There is your disconnect. The people making the change are making it because it no longer works. Now the school is going to spread the spots out geographically (which is how most selective state univestites also act, so the kids may as well get used to it)

It's not just state universities that do this. Elite schools do it too. They have recognized that it doesn't do them any good to have a supermajority of students coming from a few places.

+100! Anyone who has had a child navigate the college admissions process - particularly top tier, highly competitive public and private schools - knows this is exactly correct. In fact, many TJ students will not get in to these top schools because there are too many students from TJ or FCPS already selected. We all know there are limited slots at MIT or Harvard and thousand of applications. Not every qualified TJ student is going to get one of those slots. I postulate Harvard or MIT have established quotas on the number of TJ students that accept each year.

[Anonymous]

Well, if Harvard does it, it has to be right...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, if Harvard does it, it has to be right...

even UVA or VT are going to balance NOVA admits with admits from the western part of the State. It's no different than TJ reserving spots from MVHS

[Anonymous]

Undoubtedly true. I'm not saying it is illegal. I just try to find moral authority from sources other than the academic so-called elite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they can change admissions but the way they did it — secretively at first, statements against Asian American students my multiple decision makers, with no proper process, notice or public hearing— is not okay.

Who made statements against Asian American students, and what did they say?

They just want to play victim.

These are people who fundamentally believe....

....that an admissions process that admits 54% Asians and 20% Black and Latino students....

....is MORE racist than a process that admits 73% Asians and 3% Black and Latino students.

They believe themselves to be better, pure and simple. They genuinely believe that as a class of people, they work harder, care more about education, and just fundamentally are smarter to such a degree that they should have more Asian students in ONE ADMITTED CLASS than TJ has had Black students in its ENTIRE 35-year history.

That is called Asian supremacy.

The new system was designed for a more even spread, and it accomplished that goal. Nobody's disputing that it looks less racist on paper.

Still, that doesn't mean it's not racist. Imagine that you have a jar of cookies, and you set up a competition where everyone gets a certain fraction of the cookies based on how they perform. One particular kid is an outsider, so the other kids don't like them very much. They're confident in themselves, though, so after putting forth a remarkable effort, they manage to earn themselves a majority of the cookies. The other kids realize that the unpopular kid is winning the most, so they all say, "hey, let's just share the cookies evenly!" Technically fair, but at the same time totally not.

Your analogy only makes sense if you subscribe to the belief that Asians work harder and are therefore more deserving. Which is the literal definition of Asian supremacy in this case.

Unless you know the starting points of everyone else in the sample, you cannot use their current position to measure their level of effort.

I am not Asian, but I see their point and for some reason you do not. All they are asking for is an objective, race-blind admissions process. They are not claiming superiority, they are simply saying “you had these objective ways of evaluating candidates for years and it worked; but now that it is clear that Asians are dominating those traditional indicators we need to change the process in a manner to allow other candidates to be evaluated higher based on race or income. They are not saying they have a monopoly on hard work or intelligence, but rather that they are willing to compete on merit and ask that the top candidates be chosen whether they are Asian or not. If society decides that we do not like that approach anymore, that’s fine. But at least be honest about it and admit that the admissions process is being redone because the objective metrics led to a student body that society has decided should not exist in a public high school. Then find a legal and Constitutional way to adjust the process. But let’s at least concede it’s their success in the process that is driving these changes.

There is your disconnect. The people making the change are making it because it no longer works. Now the school is going to spread the spots out geographically (which is how most selective state univestites also act, so the kids may as well get used to it)

It's not just state universities that do this. Elite schools do it too. They have recognized that it doesn't do them any good to have a supermajority of students coming from a few places.

+100! Anyone who has had a child navigate the college admissions process - particularly top tier, highly competitive public and private schools - knows this is exactly correct. In fact, many TJ students will not get in to these top schools because there are too many students from TJ or FCPS already selected. We all know there are limited slots at MIT or Harvard and thousand of applications. Not every qualified TJ student is going to get one of those slots. I postulate Harvard or MIT have established quotas on the number of TJ students that accept each year.

I don't believe it's a quota of TJ students, but I do believe that it's a soft quota of kids from Northern Virginia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, if Harvard does it, it has to be right...

I mean, if you don't like what Harvard or TJ are doing, there's a simple answer. Don't apply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Undoubtedly true. I'm not saying it is illegal. I just try to find moral authority from sources other than the academic so-called elite.

It’s a public school that supposedly exists to serve the county. When you both have feeder schools and schools that rarely place students, it is serving a section of the county

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they can change admissions but the way they did it — secretively at first, statements against Asian American students my multiple decision makers, with no proper process, notice or public hearing— is not okay.

Who made statements against Asian American students, and what did they say?

They just want to play victim.

These are people who fundamentally believe....

....that an admissions process that admits 54% Asians and 20% Black and Latino students....

....is MORE racist than a process that admits 73% Asians and 3% Black and Latino students.

They believe themselves to be better, pure and simple. They genuinely believe that as a class of people, they work harder, care more about education, and just fundamentally are smarter to such a degree that they should have more Asian students in ONE ADMITTED CLASS than TJ has had Black students in its ENTIRE 35-year history.

That is called Asian supremacy.

The new system was designed for a more even spread, and it accomplished that goal. Nobody's disputing that it looks less racist on paper.

Still, that doesn't mean it's not racist. Imagine that you have a jar of cookies, and you set up a competition where everyone gets a certain fraction of the cookies based on how they perform. One particular kid is an outsider, so the other kids don't like them very much. They're confident in themselves, though, so after putting forth a remarkable effort, they manage to earn themselves a majority of the cookies. The other kids realize that the unpopular kid is winning the most, so they all say, "hey, let's just share the cookies evenly!" Technically fair, but at the same time totally not.

Your analogy only makes sense if you subscribe to the belief that Asians work harder and are therefore more deserving. Which is the literal definition of Asian supremacy in this case.

Unless you know the starting points of everyone else in the sample, you cannot use their current position to measure their level of effort.

I am not Asian, but I see their point and for some reason you do not. All they are asking for is an objective, race-blind admissions process. They are not claiming superiority, they are simply saying “you had these objective ways of evaluating candidates for years and it worked; but now that it is clear that Asians are dominating those traditional indicators we need to change the process in a manner to allow other candidates to be evaluated higher based on race or income. They are not saying they have a monopoly on hard work or intelligence, but rather that they are willing to compete on merit and ask that the top candidates be chosen whether they are Asian or not. If society decides that we do not like that approach anymore, that’s fine. But at least be honest about it and admit that the admissions process is being redone because the objective metrics led to a student body that society has decided should not exist in a public high school. Then find a legal and Constitutional way to adjust the process. But let’s at least concede it’s their success in the process that is driving these changes.

Gonna continue on this because it's important.

What you keep hearing clamoring for over and over and over again is "objectivity" in the admissions process, both for TJ and for everyone else. And on its face, that sounds attractive and sensible. After all, when you're talking about the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, which posits itself as a leader in STEM education, shouldn't the admissions process seek objective measures to determine the strongest applicants in STEM?

But there's a core problem with this thought process.

The principle problem with the current iteration of TJ - which should change significantly with the new admissions process - is that the OLD process basically gave families a roadmap to optimizing that process. Score as highly as possible on the standardized exam, provide demonstrations of STEM capability by participating in competitions, and get the best grades you can in as advanced classes (especially in math) as possible.

Pearson's Law: "What is measured improves."

The old admissions process couldn't possibly have cared less about literally anything else that a student did before age 13, and as such incentivized behaviors that frankly aren't great for 11, 12, and 13-year olds. Extreme test prep, extreme acceleration in math (leaving huge gaps in comprehension according to TJ math teachers), and an abandonment of activities that aren't STEM-adjacent.

The result? An enormous amount of kids at the school who all have the same goals, the same future plans, the same college aspirations, etc etc etc. Once upon a time, TJ was a place where students were able to find their own niche - where the high achievers shared a dedication to the study of STEM, but applied that passion to diverse fields and interests. Nowadays, those exit points have narrowed considerably, creating an environment that is - stop me if you've heard this before - toxic and hyper-competitive. You have too many kids there who all see the same future for themselves. And yes, the cream rises to the top, but you end up with a ton of kids who are just lesser versions of the other ones.

This is a direct function of the previous, supposedly "objective" admissions process. The bottom line is that TJ is a better academic environment when the students have diverse interests, passions, hopes, and dreams above and beyond being limited to just STEM.